 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 18789 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2023 | Mar 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 20966 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2003 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2015 | Feb 2015 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Starbug"And so
And the reason I asked ?
We have posters suggesting that SKY [ our main benefactor would in some way be embarrased to have it suggested that they were providing extra financial help [ via the RFL to one particular SL expansion club for the betterment of the sport as a whole
And yet in Australia , it is no secret that News Corp [ SKY own the Melbourne Storm , a club that although has come under recent scrutiny is an expansion club , and has progressed in a similar way that Myself and others would be happy with the Crusaders to do the same , it has been properly financed all out in the open
I have no doubt some will now provide evidence to the contrary
I've saved you looking
 '"
IF Murdoch decided to "own" London and Wales" Franchise teams, I would have no problem with that....IF Murdoch decided to [upay[/u these clubs more I would. If, as part of the "expansion" programme Murdoch is offering [u financial assistance[/u, I would not have a problem so long as the money was being spent according to the reason it was given (marketing, player development etc....but NOT SALARIES)
Bottom line is regardless of if I have a problem or not with the way Murdoch controls the game in the UK, he does. The clubs voted the RFL management in, they agree with the way the RFL are running the game and it is they who are the only ones who can make a stand against Murdoch......not that they ever will as there will always be 14 who will be receiving cash from him.....
The likes of Leigh, Fev, Fax, Barrow will all have to bide their time......if they can grow their smaller businesses without his cash, then it will be harder for him to ignore them.
I would love to see CH games with an average accross the board of 3k+ gates...and I have said many times that the SL clubs and the RFL should be assisting in any way possible. The 100 quid add on to a SL season ticket that allows entry to every CH1 game would be a start. | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="TwoBlues"As I didn't address the French situation your suggesting of idiocy seems unnecessary.'" He was included in the list of examples you dismissed, either you cant read or you did address it.
Quote The RFL don't seem to have put in place a structure that would attract Chief Executives to a little place in North Wales.The job was advertised wasn't it ? Perhaps it's just jobs for the boys
and no longer any requirement for transparency as all is clear,now.'" You mean other than the two have held the position prior to Rod Findlay? | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 33944 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="gutterfax"IF Murdoch decided to "own" London and Wales" Franchise teams, I would have no problem with that....IF Murdoch decided to :1cizvvjc[u:1cizvvjcpay[/u:1cizvvjc:1cizvvjc these clubs more I would. If, as part of the "expansion" programme Murdoch is offering [u:1cizvvjc:1cizvvjcfinancial assistance:1cizvvjc[/u:1cizvvjc, I would not have a problem so long as the money was being spent according to the reason it was given (marketing, player development etc....but =#FF0000:1cizvvjcNOT SALARIES where would be the problem as long as it was all in the open ?
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 33944 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="gutterfax":30c35qwv
Bottom line is regardless of if I have a problem or not with the way Murdoch controls the game in the UK, =#FF0000:30c35qwvhe does.:30c35qwv The clubs voted the RFL management in, they agree with the way the RFL are running the game and it is they who are the only ones who can =#FF0000:30c35qwvmake a stand against Murdoch.:30c35qwv.....not that they ever will as there will always be 14 who will be receiving cash from him.....
=#FF0000:30c35qwvThe likes of Leigh, Fev, Fax, Barrow will all have to bide their time..:30c35qwv....if they can grow their smaller businesses without his cash, then it will be harder for him to ignore them.
=#FF0000:30c35qwvI would love to see CH games with an average accross the board of 3k+ gates:30c35qwv...and =#FF0000:30c35qwvI have said many times that the SL clubs and the RFL should be assisting in any way possible. The 100 quid add on to a SL season ticket that allows entry to every CH1 game would be a start:30c35qwv.'" in the Championships and to me that should be the main aim of the clubs and the RFL
No chance , they need supporters of their clubs , not fans of SL clubs with a couple of hours to spare , all that would do would be to artificially inflate the average without the neccessary benifits of building a club | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5870 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2016 | Aug 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"Again, you are making a massive, frankly a little ridiculous leap from the conclusions of a 2005 strategy document for SL that came from the SL clubs and the RFL, before the franchise system had even been proposed, let alone agreed. To the practical implementation and conclusions of the franchise strategy three years later.
You are also for some reason reading [i"The basis for the licensing process was established in May 2005 when the RFL, in full consultation with member clubs, drew up a strategy document for Super League which basically said 'This is what we want the league to look like and this is what we want the clubs to look like,'" explained Findlay. '"
Then it rather makes you wonder why they were speculating about what the make up of Heartland/expansion Super League clubs should look like, if they are still looking at it as a P&R league?
P&R leagues tend to sort themselves out automatically; whoever finishes bottom of SL goes down, and whoever wins the NL1 Grand Final (as it was then known), goes up.
Simples!
Quote ="SmokeyTA""The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs and said it was not felt the heartland would be able to sustain that number of Super League clubs.[/i as, [iWe have decided prior to looking at the applications which clubs we want in[/i
these statements clearly arent the same'"
We knew in 2006 that the RFL were looking at introducing licensing for 2009. The ‘2005 strategy document’ would, almost certainly, be preliminary activity towards moving in that direction. It was also the year they approached Leighton Samuel with a “three year plan”. Les Catalans were brought in to Super league in 2006 and had a no relegation clause that took them to 2009 – conveniently - having already been preparing for 2 years beforehand.
You can draw your own conclusions and I will draw mine.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" But it isnt is it. You are highly simplifying the 'location' part of the decision. Is it inconceivable that the RFL having looked at the bids, saw the upsides to the international game, the higher visibility, the preference of its media partners and the affect that would have on the league as a whole, the growth potential not only for an SL club which managed to tap into a market in Wales, but for the international/amateur game in Wales and England? and a million other tangible and intangible benefits THAT WERE INCLUDED IN CRUSADERS BID the RFL thought in their subjective opinion Crusaders offered more that other clubs who didnt INCLUDE THESE THINGS, OR NOT TO THE SAME LEVEL IN THEIR BIDS?
You seem to be saying that A) These benefits shouldnt have been considered and B) that we should be able to know the ins and outs of these benefits, their chances, the potential pit falls and potential growth areas without asking for information from the clubs.
You couldnt be more wrong, going on potential (which is entirely right) requires more detailed analysis, and more information because it is much harder to predict.
This seems to be the decisive point. Potential (which always had a chance of not succeeding) and strategic aims (and their benefits) need to be taken out of the process for your conspiracy theory to stay alive. Once you get passed that the conspiracy becomes nonsense. Once we get into subjective decision making, the fact Widnes ticked more boxes becomes irrelevant and the my club is better than your club penis measuring loses all importance
Nobody said it would be easy.
Maybe the RFL felt this was an acceptable risk considering the potential upsides to their admission and potential downsides of them not being admitted.'"
This really is the nitty gritty of the matter. Putting a club in SL, on a wing and a prayer, without solid foundations to back it up, is not what I would call a stringent way of doing things.
This is why trying to judge and expansion club against a less preferred heartland club is somewhat disingenuous, as nothing that heartland club can do, or how obvious it is that the heartland club would be a much stronger force, would count in it’s favour; even if the said expansion club was miles behind on every worthwhile and solid metric. Hard facts and the actual reality of what the heartland club has in place becomes completely worthless against the intangible hopes and aims for the expansion club and the game as a whole.
The empirical becomes worthless in the face of the theoretical.
This is why the Celtic Crusaders, and any other expansion club they want to include in SL in the future, should be allotted a ring-fenced place in SL and not have to put a bid in. It is a totally insincere concept, to admit what you have admitted in this last quote, and still claim that the criteria, as laid down by the RFL, was evaluated without prejudice and in a rigorous and fair manner.
The RFL may have analyzed all the documents, but they only took notice of what they wanted to take notice of, in order to get the result they wanted. That is not proper scrutiny - if they have viewed it the way you seem to believe they have. They may have been right to give the Celtic Crusaders a licence, purely on these quixotic aspirations, but to award a licence to them, based on a supposed empirical investigation, is fallacious, imo.
Instead of adding insult to injury (to the rejected clubs) the RFL should have made the case for the expansion club, as you have done so eloquently over the years, as well as here. They then should have awarded them a licence without them needing to put a bid in and simply told the heartland clubs that they will be competing against each other - which was furtively the case anyway, imo. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Pepe"Then it rather makes you wonder why they were speculating about what the make up of Heartland/expansion Super League clubs should look like, if they are still looking at it as a P&R league?
P&R leagues tend to sort themselves out automatically; whoever finishes bottom of SL goes down, and whoever wins the NL1 Grand Final (as it was then known), goes up.'"
You think in a P+R league the RFL/SL shouldnt have an expansion strategy?
Quote We knew in 2006 that the RFL were looking at introducing licensing for 2009. The ‘2005 strategy document’ would, almost certainly, be preliminary activity towards moving in that direction. It was also the year they approached Leighton Samuel with a “three year plan”. Les Catalans were brought in to Super league in 2006 and had a no relegation clause that took them to 2009 – conveniently - having already been preparing for 2 years beforehand.
You can draw your own conclusions and I will draw mine.
'" So you think that is good logical evidence that the RFL had already decided which clubs were in SL 4 years before the franchise decision?
Quote This really is the nitty gritty of the matter. Putting a club in SL, on a wing and a prayer, without solid foundations to back it up, is not what I would call a stringent way of doing things. '" Why? you can admit clubs on potential having 'stringently' looked at their franchise bid with 'detailed analysis'
Remember the 'wing and a prayer' is your subjective analysis of the Crusaders bid.
Quote This is why trying to judge and expansion club against a less preferred heartland club is somewhat disingenuous, as nothing that heartland club can do, or how obvious it is that the heartland club would be a much stronger force, would count in it’s favour; even if the said expansion club was miles behind on every worthwhile and solid metric. Hard facts and the actual reality of what the heartland club has in place becomes completely worthless against the intangible hopes and aims for the expansion club and the game as a whole.'" So how come some heartland clubs were admitted when some expansion clubs werent? Clearly what you have put is nonsense
Quote The empirical becomes worthless in the face of the theoretical. '" No, it doesnt, any plan for the future will include some empirical and some theoretical analysis. When you are dealing with something which is unknown like the future, it would be crazy to solely rely on what went before. Thats why you find this disclaimer in most investments. [iPast Performance is not a guide as it does not prove what could happen in the future. The value of these investments can go down as well as up.[/i
Quote This is why the Celtic Crusaders, and any other expansion club they want to include in SL in the future, should be allotted a ring-fenced place in SL and not have to put a bid in. It is a totally insincere concept, to admit what you have admitted in this last quote, and still claim that the criteria, as laid down by the RFL, was evaluated without prejudice and in a rigorous and fair manner.'" Forget Widnes for a moment. Forget they were judged against Crusaders. Look at Crusaders on their own. Even if there was nothing Widnes could do to beat Crusaders bid, even if the RFL had decided they wanted an expansion club in. Even if all your paranoid speculation is true. How would the RFL know it was Crusaders they wanted it, rather than say Toulouse, not before they look at the bids (which would be pretty difficult in and of itself) but 4 years before the process, a year before Crusaders were even formed, in 2005? which is of course when the comments you have decided to read out of context to try and prove your hypothesis were made.
Quote The RFL may have analyzed all the documents, but they only took notice of what they wanted to take notice of, in order to get the result they wanted. That is not proper scrutiny - if they have viewed it the way you seem to believe they have. They may have been right to give the Celtic Crusaders a licence, purely on these quixotic aspirations, but to award a licence to them, based on a supposed empirical investigation, is fallacious, imo. '" They certainly did conduct their investigation using information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.
Quote Instead of adding insult to injury (to the rejected clubs) the RFL should have made the case for the expansion club, as you have done so eloquently over the years, as well as here. They then should have awarded them a licence without them needing to put a bid in and simply told the heartland clubs that they will be competing against each other - which was furtively the case anyway, imo.'" For the first round, they needed to make sure they had the best heartland clubs. From now, i dont think any clubs should be competing against any other club. If a club can add to SL, that shouldnt be dependent on another not being able to. From now, we should aim to only grow the league in size. Widnes should be admitted this year on their own merits, not because they are better than Fax, but because they themselves can contribute to SL. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1749 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2009 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2014 | Nov 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"He was included in the list of examples you dismissed, either you cant read or you did address it.
You mean other than the two have held the position prior to Rod Findlay?'"
I can read again.It's a miracle !
So,has the club in Wrexham,where the owners who take the club into administration and recruit not only players from other Super League clubs but a new Chief Executive while remaining in administration,bought the club again ? [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/celtic_crusaders/9239840.stmLINK[/url ( They did suggest by the end of the week and my reading abilty informs me that time is a wastin'.)
Anyway,your cogent argument with only the salient points put so succinctly has convinced me that the RFL is transparent and a speck of penicillin in a sea of bacteria so evident at English soccer clubs with their dishonest owners and soccer agents,steeped in dishonesty and wallowing in a cesspit of their own making.I am so proud of the honesty and integrity of all those involved in rugby league and the RFL being the vanguard for transparancy.
I am so inspired I shall never pay another bill. | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5870 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2016 | Aug 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"You think in a P+R league the RFL/SL shouldnt have an expansion strategy?
So you think that is good logical evidence that the RFL had already decided which clubs were in SL 4 years before the franchise decision?'"
That’s not what I said. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You can indeed have an expansion strategy, but it is difficult to ensure which clubs you have within Super league with a P&R system in place. So it is pointless trying to decide what the ratio of expansion to heartland clubs should be.
What I was obviously saying was that this document was clearly the first step to moving towards a licence system, stating that 14 clubs from the heartlands could not supply enough quality to fill it is premature, if they intended to run a fair and rigorous licence bid process. Therefore, if they had already decided how many heartland and expansion clubs they need, it is a mere formality for them to pick any expansion clubs they have available to fill those ring-fenced positions. In other words, the reality was that the expansion clubs were merely competing against each other the fill the available expansion places and the heartland clubs were competing against each other for the heartland places.
This is not what the RFL has told us happened. Instead they lumped us all together in one process and tried to pretend they were merely picking the most suitable club. As we now know, they had already decided how many expansion clubs they wanted, so this was clearly a load of bollox (as Starbug would say).
Quote ="SmokeyTA" Why? you can admit clubs on potential having 'stringently' looked at their franchise bid with 'detailed analysis''"
Because, in doing so, you are not taking an holistic or balanced view of the licence criteria, as set out by the RFL themselves, but only considered the merits of expansion, rather than the overall metrics of each club. That approach tips the balance overwhelmingly in favour of the expansion clubs. So it wasn’t a fair fight, as I explained to you in my last post. If the merits if expansion is so obvious, why bother having expansion clubs bid at all?
That is my point.
Quote ="SmokeyTA"Remember the 'wing and a prayer' is your subjective analysis of the Crusaders bid. '"
And one which has now been proven beyond doubt, as they no longer exist, in the form they presented themselves to bid process in 2008.
Quote ="SmokeyTA"So how come some heartland clubs were admitted when some expansion clubs werent? Clearly what you have put is nonsense '"
Because they already decided how many expansion clubs, they wanted in 2005, when they decided how many heartland clubs they thought they needed for a 14 club league.
Quote ="SmokeyTA"No, it doesnt, any plan for the future will include some empirical and some theoretical analysis. When you are dealing with something which is unknown like the future, it would be crazy to solely rely on what went before. Thats why you find this disclaimer in most investments. Past Performance is not a guide as it does not prove what could happen in the future. The value of these investments can go down as well as up. '"
This is what the bid process was suppose to do. It is to show who is the most likely to survive and prosper in Super League, by analyzing the club as a whole, particularly its ability to stay afloat. Once you ignore this for a more quixotic approach, you are taking a greater risk. So, the choice, for the RFL, was to look at the bids holistically and ensure that they have in place a business plan and infrastructure that can cope for three years competing at the highest level. or just come out and say that one of the 2 extra places was negotiated for an expansion club. The more chances you take with an investment the more likely you are to fail. If you have much better options available, you take them. Your musing at the end of the post are poor generalizations, which aren’t necessarily applicable to the situation we are discussing here. The detail is what makes the RFL’s decision making here seem odd.
The criteria wasn’t branded as an attempt to find the club which suited expansion best, but as a way to ascertain which clubs would be able to prosper in SL by examining, and taking into account, [iall[/i of the evidence.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" Forget Widnes for a moment '"
I never mentioned Widnes, and it’s not just Widnes whom were affected. There are more teams here whom would have every right to be angry about the way the RFL conducted the licence bid process.
Quote ="SmokeyTA"Forget Widnes for a moment. Forget they were judged against Crusaders. Look at Crusaders on their own. Even if there was nothing Widnes could do to beat Crusaders bid, even if the RFL had decided they wanted an expansion club in. Even if all your paranoid speculation is true. How would the RFL know it was Crusaders they wanted it, rather than say Toulouse, not before they look at the bids (which would be pretty difficult in and of itself) but 4 years before the process, a year before Crusaders were even formed, in 2005? which is of course when the comments you have decided to read out of context to try and prove your hypothesis were made. '"
Because Leighton Samuel himself let the cat out of the bag, in an interview, that he was approached by people from the RFL with an offer of a three year plan to enter them in Super League. It looked clear, from the rest of that interview too, that all he had to do was keep his part of the bargain and get them in to NL1 and a licence would be awarded to his club. He was adamant that this would happen or he would walk away from the club – which he eventually did anyway.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" They certainly did conduct their investigation using information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. '"
And failed miserably. Because they thought more about the benefits it could bring, should it work, rather than could it actually be viable; we now no the answer to that question.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" For the first round, they needed to make sure they had the best heartland clubs. From now, i dont think any clubs should be competing against any other club. If a club can add to SL, that shouldnt be dependent on another not being able to. From now, we should aim to only grow the league in size. '"
I agree! 
However, this depends of more funding and whether the SL club chairmen would be willing to split the T.V. money with more than 14 clubs.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" Widnes should be admitted this year on their own merits, not because they are better than Fax, but because they themselves can contribute to SL.'"
You see, I just don’t understand this. If Halifax were the better club, why would Widnes be able to contribute more to Super League more than them? | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Pepe"That’s not what I said. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You can indeed have an expansion strategy, but it is difficult to ensure which clubs you have within Super league with a P&R system in place. So it is pointless trying to decide what the ratio of expansion to heartland clubs should be. '" Im not wordws into your mouth, one of those was simply a question. There is no mention of ensuring the league looks like anything, never mind them deciding how to go about it. There is simply a fairly vague set of aims.
Quote What I was obviously saying was that this document was clearly the first step to moving towards a licence system, stating that 14 clubs from the heartlands could not supply enough quality to fill it is premature, if they intended to run a fair and rigorous licence bid process. Therefore, if they had already decided how many heartland and expansion clubs they need, it is a mere formality for them to pick any expansion clubs they have available to fill those ring-fenced positions. In other words, the reality was that the expansion clubs were merely competing against each other the fill the available expansion places and the heartland clubs were competing against each other for the heartland places. '" They hadnt yet decided it would be 14 clubs, never mind which 14 they would be. It was again, the SL clubs consulting with the RFL who said there wasnt the player depth to have 14 clubs. If everyone with the experience agrees there isnt 14 clubs worth of players in the heartlands, what do you want the RFL to do?
Quote This is not what the RFL has told us happened. Instead they lumped us all together in one process and tried to pretend they were merely picking the most suitable club. As we now know, they had already decided how many expansion clubs they wanted, so this was clearly a load of bollox (as Starbug would say). '" The RFL did pick what they believed to be the 14 most suitable clubs. The fact they considered a fairly important factor in player depth is simply part of that. Surely it would be unsuitable to pick a club from an area which didnt have, and you, along with everyone else 'in the know' didnt expect to have the player pool to support it.
Quote Because, in doing so, you are not taking an holistic or balanced view of the licence criteria, as set out by the RFL themselves, but only considered the merits of expansion, rather than the overall metrics of each club. That approach tips the balance overwhelmingly in favour of the expansion clubs. So it wasn’t a fair fight, as I explained to you in my last post. If the merits if expansion is so obvious, why bother having expansion clubs bid at all?'" No, it is you who isnt taking a holistic or balanced view of the criteria. And again you are conflating the tick box criteria with the subjective analysis done by the RFL.
Quote And one which has now been proven beyond doubt, as they no longer exist, in the form they presented themselves to bid process in 2008.'"
they are in pretty much exactly the same position as Widnes at the time the bids were submitted.
Quote Because they already decided how many expansion clubs, they wanted in 2005, when they decided how many heartland clubs they thought they needed for a 14 club league.
'" they didnt, you are extrapolating massively from a fairly small and pretty vague statement.The RFL didnt decide they were moving to 14 clubs until after the bids were submitted. Until 3 years after this conclusion was made. Your timeline is all wrong.
Quote This is what the bid process was suppose to do. It is to show who is the most likely to survive and prosper in Super League, by analyzing the club as a whole, particularly its ability to stay afloat. Once you ignore this for a more quixotic approach, you are taking a greater risk. So, the choice, for the RFL, was to look at the bids holistically and ensure that they have in place a business plan and infrastructure that can cope for three years competing at the highest level. or just come out and say that one of the 2 extra places was negotiated for an expansion club. The more chances you take with an investment the more likely you are to fail. If you have much better options available, you take them. Your musing at the end of the post are poor generalizations, which aren’t necessarily applicable to the situation we are discussing here. The detail is what makes the RFL’s decision making here seem odd.
The criteria wasn’t branded as an attempt to find the club which suited expansion best, but as a way to ascertain which clubs would be able to prosper in SL by examining [iall[/i of the evidence. '" No, it wasnt. Licensing was brought in to grow the game as a whole and the league specifically. To admit the best bids going forward, not at that specific moment in time.
Quote I never mentioned Widnes, and it’s not just Widnes whom were affected. There are more teams here whom would have every right to be angry about the way the RFL conducted the licence bid process.
Because Leighton Samuel himself let the cat out of the bag in, an interview, that he was approached by people from the RFL with an offer of a three year plan to enter them in Super League. It looked clear, from the rest of that interview too, that all he had to do was keep his part of the bargain and get them in to NL1 and a licence would be awarded to his club. He was adamant that this would happen or he would walk away from the club – which he eventually did anyway. '" Which again isnt the same thing as your speculating. It is good the RFL approach people and get them investing in the game with an AIM and a PATHWAY for getting to SL. We know they have done something similar with Steve O'Connor.
Quote And failed miserably. Because they thought more about the benefits it could bring, should it work, rather than could it actually be viable; we now no the answer to that question. '" It only means they didnt take the safe choice, it doesnt mean they didnt take the right choice.
Quote I agree!
However, this depends of more funding and whether the SL club chairmen would be willing to split the T.V. money with more than 14 clubs. '" If the club would add to the league, and grow it. The Sky would be silly not to extend it. It would be in their best interests to bring in another top club.
Quote eusa_eh.gif
You see, I just don’t understand this. If Halifax were the better club, why would Widnes be able to contribute more to Super League more than them?'"
Well if Halifax could also contribute then both would be admitted. As it is, i personally am not convinced either Widnes or Halifax have the potential to really contribute at the top level of the sport. Im not sure either will come in and do much if i am honest. However if they both could do, both should be in SL. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 33944 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"Im not wordws into your mouth, one of those was simply a question. There is no mention of ensuring the league looks like anything, never mind them deciding how to go about it. There is simply a fairly vague set of aims.
They hadnt yet decided it would be 14 clubs, never mind which 14 they would be. It was again, the SL clubs consulting with the RFL who said there wasnt the player depth to have 14 clubs. If everyone with the experience agrees there isnt 14 clubs worth of players in the heartlands, what do you want the RFL to do?
The RFL did pick what they believed to be the 14 most suitable clubs. The fact they considered a fairly important factor in player depth is simply part of that. Surely it would be unsuitable to pick a club from an area which didnt have, and you, along with everyone else 'in the know' didnt expect to have the player pool to support it.
No, it is you who isnt taking a holistic or balanced view of the criteria. And again you are conflating the tick box criteria with the subjective analysis done by the RFL.
they are in pretty much exactly the same position as Widnes at the time the bids were submitted.
they didnt, you are extrapolating massively from a fairly small and pretty vague statement.The RFL didnt decide they were moving to 14 clubs until after the bids were submitted. Until 3 years after this conclusion was made. Your timeline is all wrong.
No, it wasnt. Licensing was brought in to grow the game as a whole and the league specifically. To admit the best bids going forward, not at that specific moment in time.
Which again isnt the same thing as your speculating. It is good the RFL approach people and get them investing in the game with an AIM and a PATHWAY for getting to SL. We know they have done something similar with Steve O'Connor.
It only means they didnt take the safe choice, it doesnt mean they didnt take the right choice.
If the club would add to the league, and grow it. The Sky would be silly not to extend it. It would be in their best interests to bring in another top club.
Well if Halifax could also contribute then both would be admitted. As it is, i personally am not convinced either Widnes or Halifax have the potential to really contribute at the top level of the sport. Im not sure either will come in and do much if i am honest. However if they both could do, both should be in SL.'"
What a load of utter bollox | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5870 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2016 | Aug 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA" Im not wordws into your mouth, one of those was simply a question. There is no mention of ensuring the league looks like anything, never mind them deciding how to go about it. There is simply a fairly vague set of aims.'"
Everything the RFL do tends to be vague. It helps with not being pinned down on areas where they say one thing and do another.
Hwoever, this statement:
[i"The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs and said it was not felt the heartland would be able to sustain that number of Super League clubs.”[/i
Seems quite emphatic that they have come to the conclusion of how many clubs, in an expanded league, should be from heartland areas. So, they have pre-judged their own licence process.
There’s just no getting away from this obvious fact, Smokey.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" They hadnt yet decided it would be 14 clubs, never mind which 14 they would be '"
Ooops!
[i“The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs”[/i
I think this shows otherwise.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" They hadnt yet decided it would be 14 clubs, never mind which 14 they would be. It was again, the SL clubs consulting with the RFL who said there wasnt the player depth to have 14 clubs. If everyone with the experience agrees there isnt 14 clubs worth of players in the heartlands, what do you want the RFL to do? '"
It is obvious that the whole process of turning Super League from P&R to a licence system began as early as 2004, when Les Catalans were set up, with a view to having a no relegation clause that would take then nicely through to 2009. A year later Leighton Samuel was asked to set up an RL club, which was given a 3 year plan. This would take up to 2008 when the licneces were to be handed out. This document is clearly the blueprint for what was to come for licencing. This seems pretty obvious to me. God knows why you can’t see it.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" The RFL did pick what they believed to be the 14 most suitable clubs. The fact they considered a fairly important factor in player depth is simply part of that. Surely it would be unsuitable to pick a club from an area which didnt have, and you, along with everyone else 'in the know' didnt expect to have the player pool to support it.'"
What, like in Wales where they are almost entirely dependant on Aussies?
You’d think that the heartlands, with it’s well established service areas and amateur clubs would be much better placed.
Unless you are saying they are expanding the player pool by importing them from Australia and NZ?
Quote ="SmokeyTA" No, it is you who isnt taking a holistic or balanced view of the criteria. And again you are conflating the tick box criteria with the subjective analysis done by the RFL.'"
No I’m looking at what we actually know the clubs had to put forward in their bids. You are the one only concentrating on one aspect of the bid (that of the benefits of expansion). Taking a holistic view of one area of the bid process is a ridiculous thing to say.
Again, I repeat what Starbug has said, ‘what a load of utter bollox’.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" they are in pretty much exactly the same position as Widnes at the time the bids were submitted.'"
Please explain?
Quote ="SmokeyTA" they didnt, you are extrapolating massively from a fairly small and pretty vague statement.The RFL didnt decide they were moving to 14 clubs until after the bids were submitted. Until 3 years after this conclusion was made. Your timeline is all wrong.'"
Again:
“The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs”
Quote ="SmokeyTA" No, it wasnt. Licensing was brought in to grow the game as a whole and the league specifically. To admit the best bids going forward, not at that specific moment in time. '"
Then the bidding criteria is completely worthless. If they are going to ignore it, ‘for the greater good’ they should have said so, and do what I have been arguing they should have done and ring fenced a certain amount of expansion places and let the heartland clubs fight it out between themselves.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" Which again isnt the same thing as your speculating. It is good the RFL approach people and get them investing in the game with an AIM and a PATHWAY for getting to SL. We know they have done something similar with Steve O'Connor.'"
If this is the case, whats the point in any other club, from the Championship bidding for a licence?
To me, it would be a deceitful method to use when you are claiming to be running a fair bid procedure.
I think it would have been a very good idea to set up a Welsh club and given them one of the extra two places available, provided they made that position clear. No heartland club should be groomed by the RFL in the same way an expansion team should be – including Widnes. They should stand on the strength of their bid at the time, as compared to other heartland clubs.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" It only means they didnt take the safe choice, it doesnt mean they didnt take the right choice.'"
Then this position should be made clear. That is why expansion clubs should not be in the bid process.
Quote ="SmokeyTA"If the club would add to the league, and grow it. The Sky would be silly not to extend it. It would be in their best interests to bring in another top club.
Well if Halifax could also contribute then both would be admitted. As it is, i personally am not convinced either Widnes or Halifax have the potential to really contribute at the top level of the sport. Im not sure either will come in and do much if i am honest. However if they both could do, both should be in SL '"
I have an opinion on this, but it would lead to a completely different area of disgussion, so I’ll leave it. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Pepe"Everything the RFL do tends to be vague. It helps with not being pinned down on areas where they say one thing and do another.
Hwoever, this statement:
[i"The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs and said it was not felt the heartland would be able to sustain that number of Super League clubs.”[/i
Seems quite emphatic that they have come to the conclusion of how many clubs, in an expanded league, should be from heartland areas. So, they have pre-judged their own licence process.
There’s just no getting away from this obvious fact, Smokey.
Ooops!
[i“The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs”[/i
I think this shows otherwise. '" and this actually showed otherwise. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 459782.stm dated 2008. It also explains that this coincided with the renegotiating of the TV contract with Sky.
Im sure you would admit it would be pretty naive for the RFL to make this kind of decision prior to them knowing the size of the TV contract.
Quote It is obvious that the whole process of turning Super League from P&R to a licence system began as early as 2004, when Les Catalans were set up, with a view to having a no relegation clause that would take then nicely through to 2009. A year later Leighton Samuel was asked to set up an RL club, which was given a 3 year plan. This would take up to 2008 when the licneces were to be handed out. This document is clearly the blueprint for what was to come for licencing. This seems pretty obvious to me. God knows why you can’t see it.
'" I havent disputed it was an aim. Im disputing that A) the decision was made prior to the bids being submitted. and B) the RFL havent been open and honest about their aims.
Quote What, like in Wales where they are almost entirely dependant on Aussies?
You’d think that the heartlands, with it’s well established service areas and amateur clubs would be much better placed.
Unless you are saying they are expanding the player pool by importing them from Australia and NZ?'" no, im saying the player pool isnt only relevant for the first 10 years. It is on-going. And i dont think it is controversial to say that there is more potential for growth in the player pool in Wales than Widnes. Widnes is surrounded by SL clubs. The pathways and the amateur game are fully matured, There isnt going to be a lot more amateur players, or more players being able to be taken from the player pool.
Quote No I’m looking at what we actually know the clubs had to put forward in their bids. You are the one only concentrating on one aspect of the bid (that of the benefits of expansion). Taking a holistic view of one area of the bid process is a ridiculous thing to say.
Again, I repeat what Starbug has said, ‘what a load of utter bollox’. '" You are desperately ignoring the fact that 'expansion' affects every area of the bid bar the stadium, Which was already covered by the plans they had submitted in the same way as wakefield, cas, Saints, and Salford.
Quote Please explain?'" That they were a brand new club in all but name.
Quote Again:
“The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs”'" again: the document wasnt binding. And again news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 459782.stm
Quote Then the bidding criteria is completely worthless. '" No, it isnt, it was used to find out which heartland clubs were best place. Which expansion clubs were best placed, and which expansion clubs were better placed than which heartland clubs. Quote If they are going to ignore it, ‘for the greater good’ they should have said so, and do what I have been arguing they should have done and ring fenced a certain amount of expansion places and let the heartland clubs fight it out between themselves. '" they didnt ignore, they used it as a part of the process, as they consistently said they would
Quote If this is the case, whats the point in any other club, from the Championship bidding for a licence?'" because they will pick the one which is best place, not simply the one which 'ticked the most boxes'. If two clubs both do what the rfl ask, there will still be one better than the other. The RFL are helping them, not doing it for them.
Quote To me, it would be a deceitful method to use when you are claiming to be running a fair bid procedure.'" its available to all clubs and all clubs were aware of it. Im not sure what you could find deceitful about it.
Quote I think it would have been a very good idea to set up a Welsh club and given them one of the extra two places available, provided they made that position clear. No heartland club should be groomed by the RFL in the same way an expansion team should be – including Widnes. They should stand on the strength of their bid at the time, as compared to other heartland clubs.
'" no, they should stand on their own merits. Being slightly better than Salford are now isnt a reason in and of itself to be admitted. The club should be admitted because it can contribute. If it cant then it shouldnt.
Quote Then this position should be made clear. That is why expansion clubs should not be in the bid process. '" It was made clear.
news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 556801.stm in 2005. |
|
Quote ="Pepe"Everything the RFL do tends to be vague. It helps with not being pinned down on areas where they say one thing and do another.
Hwoever, this statement:
[i"The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs and said it was not felt the heartland would be able to sustain that number of Super League clubs.”[/i
Seems quite emphatic that they have come to the conclusion of how many clubs, in an expanded league, should be from heartland areas. So, they have pre-judged their own licence process.
There’s just no getting away from this obvious fact, Smokey.
Ooops!
[i“The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs”[/i
I think this shows otherwise. '" and this actually showed otherwise. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 459782.stm dated 2008. It also explains that this coincided with the renegotiating of the TV contract with Sky.
Im sure you would admit it would be pretty naive for the RFL to make this kind of decision prior to them knowing the size of the TV contract.
Quote It is obvious that the whole process of turning Super League from P&R to a licence system began as early as 2004, when Les Catalans were set up, with a view to having a no relegation clause that would take then nicely through to 2009. A year later Leighton Samuel was asked to set up an RL club, which was given a 3 year plan. This would take up to 2008 when the licneces were to be handed out. This document is clearly the blueprint for what was to come for licencing. This seems pretty obvious to me. God knows why you can’t see it.
'" I havent disputed it was an aim. Im disputing that A) the decision was made prior to the bids being submitted. and B) the RFL havent been open and honest about their aims.
Quote What, like in Wales where they are almost entirely dependant on Aussies?
You’d think that the heartlands, with it’s well established service areas and amateur clubs would be much better placed.
Unless you are saying they are expanding the player pool by importing them from Australia and NZ?'" no, im saying the player pool isnt only relevant for the first 10 years. It is on-going. And i dont think it is controversial to say that there is more potential for growth in the player pool in Wales than Widnes. Widnes is surrounded by SL clubs. The pathways and the amateur game are fully matured, There isnt going to be a lot more amateur players, or more players being able to be taken from the player pool.
Quote No I’m looking at what we actually know the clubs had to put forward in their bids. You are the one only concentrating on one aspect of the bid (that of the benefits of expansion). Taking a holistic view of one area of the bid process is a ridiculous thing to say.
Again, I repeat what Starbug has said, ‘what a load of utter bollox’. '" You are desperately ignoring the fact that 'expansion' affects every area of the bid bar the stadium, Which was already covered by the plans they had submitted in the same way as wakefield, cas, Saints, and Salford.
Quote Please explain?'" That they were a brand new club in all but name.
Quote Again:
“The document concluded that the competition should be expanded to 14 clubs”'" again: the document wasnt binding. And again news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 459782.stm
Quote Then the bidding criteria is completely worthless. '" No, it isnt, it was used to find out which heartland clubs were best place. Which expansion clubs were best placed, and which expansion clubs were better placed than which heartland clubs. Quote If they are going to ignore it, ‘for the greater good’ they should have said so, and do what I have been arguing they should have done and ring fenced a certain amount of expansion places and let the heartland clubs fight it out between themselves. '" they didnt ignore, they used it as a part of the process, as they consistently said they would
Quote If this is the case, whats the point in any other club, from the Championship bidding for a licence?'" because they will pick the one which is best place, not simply the one which 'ticked the most boxes'. If two clubs both do what the rfl ask, there will still be one better than the other. The RFL are helping them, not doing it for them.
Quote To me, it would be a deceitful method to use when you are claiming to be running a fair bid procedure.'" its available to all clubs and all clubs were aware of it. Im not sure what you could find deceitful about it.
Quote I think it would have been a very good idea to set up a Welsh club and given them one of the extra two places available, provided they made that position clear. No heartland club should be groomed by the RFL in the same way an expansion team should be – including Widnes. They should stand on the strength of their bid at the time, as compared to other heartland clubs.
'" no, they should stand on their own merits. Being slightly better than Salford are now isnt a reason in and of itself to be admitted. The club should be admitted because it can contribute. If it cant then it shouldnt.
Quote Then this position should be made clear. That is why expansion clubs should not be in the bid process. '" It was made clear.
news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 556801.stm in 2005. | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 48326 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2023 | Oct 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Transparency:
If only the RFL had some sort of simple QnA or [url=http://therfl.co.uk/licensing/licensing_faqsFAQ sheet[/url on the licence process, including how decisions will be reached this year.
You know, something that said, oh I don't now …
Quote Clubs are assessed on criteria in 5 key areas:
a. Commercial, Marketing, Media and Community.
b. Facilities.
c. Finance.
d. Governance and Business Management.
e. Playing Strength and Player Performance Strategy.
Clubs that meet all of the A Grade criteria across the 5 areas will be awarded an A Grade licence. Clubs that materially meet all the A Grade criteria and/or satisfy the RFL that they will meet the criteria in the next round of licensing will be awarded a B Grade licence.
The RFL will then allocate the remaining Super League licences to those existing Super League clubs and/or Championship clubs which applied for a licence and met the Championship Club Minimum Criteria. The licenses will be allocated to those clubs that the RFL board believes are the most suitable, taking into account the:
a. Extent to which each club helps meet the SLE Strategy and the strategic aims and objectives of the Licensing process;
b. Historical activity of the clubs under consideration; and
c. RFL’s reasonable opinion as to future performance of the clubs under consideration.
'" | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 16250 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2020 | Feb 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
We know all that TB, they just haven't seen it themselves. Also there is nothing transparent about points a. and c. on your list. It is purely a decision made by the RFL board (yeh right) and SKY
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 48326 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2023 | Oct 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
So once more we return to "The RFL should be more transparent" … "it is" … "No, what I mean by 'more transparent' is only tell us things we want to hear".
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1034 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2007 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2024 | Jul 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="tb"So once more we return to "The RFL should be more transparent" … "it is" … "No, what I mean by 'more transparent' is only tell us things we want to hear".'"
No, what we mean is "be more transparent". For example SL criteria might be available but nobody knows how the RFL scored each bid - only the overall grade. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 48326 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Sep 2023 | Oct 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
You want the RFL to reveal commercially sensitive information, around financial stability etc, relating to other separate limited companies?
Ain't never going to happen: there's more chance of a consensus on RLFans in support of a new club playing top flight professional rugby.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 28186 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2016 | Aug 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="tb"You want the RFL to reveal commercially sensitive information, around financial stability etc, relating to other separate limited companies?'"
If you do want to know anyway...
www.companieshouse.gov.uk
Although it will cost you, and it will only show what is already a matter of public record.
Stop expecting the RFL to spoon feed you and do your own research if you're that interested. |
|
Quote ="tb"You want the RFL to reveal commercially sensitive information, around financial stability etc, relating to other separate limited companies?'"
If you do want to know anyway...
www.companieshouse.gov.uk
Although it will cost you, and it will only show what is already a matter of public record.
Stop expecting the RFL to spoon feed you and do your own research if you're that interested. | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1034 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2007 | 17 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2024 | Jul 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="tb"You want the RFL to reveal commercially sensitive information, around financial stability etc, relating to other separate limited companies?
Ain't never going to happen: there's more chance of a consensus on RLFans in support of a new club playing top flight professional rugby.'"
As pointed out, the info is available anyway and I fail to see how anybody can capitalise on it anyway.
Stability is mostly based on historic data rather than current data. I doubt that Huddersfield's balance sheet from two years ago is going to be "sensitive". | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Hedgehog King"As pointed out, the info is available anyway and I fail to see how anybody can capitalise on it anyway.
Stability is mostly based on historic data rather than current data. I doubt that Huddersfield's balance sheet from two years ago is going to be "sensitive".'"
But you arent asking for Huddersfields balance sheet from 2 years ago, you are asking for the RFL to make public their opinion on the Huddersfield balance sheet. If you cant work out how that may be something the clubs, for very obvious reasons, may not want releasing then there is no helping you. | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5870 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2016 | Aug 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="SmokeyTA" and this actually showed otherwise. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 459782.stm dated 2008. It also explains that this coincided with the renegotiating of the TV contract with Sky.
Im sure you would admit it would be pretty naive for the RFL to make this kind of decision prior to them knowing the size of the TV contract.'"
It doesn’t change the fact that the RFL had already decided that they needed to expand SL to 14 clubs in 2005, and that they felt that there were only so many heartland clubs which would be able to be part of it, and then write it up in as official policy. Low and behold, we now have exactly that.
Who was doing the speculating, because it wasn’t the RFL?
They were perfectly clear about what they wanted in 2005. Perhaps it was naive, or perhaps they had already had the go ahead as far back as 2005, from Sky, to begin planning for a 14 club SL for 2009. It is not an unusual thing for businesses to have 5 and 10 year plans and have agreements in place for them. Given the timing of the setting up of two of the expansion clubs, it seems likely. Richard Lewis actually seems very confident it would happen, in that 2005 link you posted. It tends to back up exactly what I have been saying; that they’d planned it in 2005, if not even earlier, and confidently announced that it would happen in 2009 as far back as that 2005 article. It is clearly going much further than simply calling it a stated aim.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" I havent disputed it was an aim. Im disputing that A) the decision was made prior to the bids being submitted. and B) the RFL havent been open and honest about their aims.'"
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one
Quote ="SmokeyTA" no, im saying the player pool isnt only relevant for the first 10 years. It is on-going. And i dont think it is controversial to say that there is more potential for growth in the player pool in Wales than Widnes. '"
I disagree. It depends on many factors. Interest in the game, academy and quality of the coaching set up, &c. Being in a heartland area, where there are lots of players that may never be given a chance by their local SL clubs, may be given a chance by the new heartland club, and prove to be a great success. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before. I can think of several brilliant players who played for my club under such circumstances, never mind the the many other heartland clubs who missed out. The heartland club can provide a nearby option, that an expansion club cannot. Thus, many players are less likely to slip though the net and disappear forever.
Quote ="SmokeyTA"Widnes is surrounded by SL clubs. The pathways and the amateur game are fully matured, There isnt going to be a lot more amateur players, or more players being able to be taken from the player pool.'"
I take that geography wasn’t your strongest subject?
Which pro RL club is directly South of Widnes?
Which pro RL club is directly West of Widnes?
Our player pathways are being improved upon all the time, by the club and Halton Borough Council. They in the schools all over Halton, and the Valhalla Foundation is taking off, with school kids from all over the borough playing each other in a competition which culminates in a final at a Widnes game in the Stobart Stadium Halton.
Widnes’ under 16’s academy went unbeaten against all SL opposition, and our 18’s dominated the elite Super League group they were in – and that is without actually being in Super League!
The club are also targeting South Liverpool and the Wirral, and even tying up with local R.U. clubs there. We have already produced plenty of rugby talent from our lowly position – including a recent England international. That was before the extra concentration and effort, which is now being put into the clubs’ youth structure and player pathways by the new Chairman and his team.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" You are desperately ignoring the fact that 'expansion' affects every area of the bid bar the stadium, Which was already covered by the plans they had submitted in the same way as wakefield, cas, Saints, and Salford.'"
Errr…really?
How does that work then?
Why is it different for and expansion club in the criteria areas marked,
Commercial and Marketing?
Facilities?
Finance?
Governance and Business Management?
Playing Strength and Player Performance Strategy?
I take it that you mean the RFL just ignore all these, when scrutinizing expansion clubs?
To my mind, you either have these in place, and in a position of strength, or you don’t. Whether you are judging a heartland club or an expansion club, it shouldn’t make any difference. The quality of that clubs bid must depend on these vital areas.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" That they were a brand new club in all but name. '"
They’re still two very, very different clubs.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" again: the document wasnt binding. And again '"
It says there was some speculation. It didn’t say by whom, or why. Therefore, totally meaningless, when you look at the bullishness and confidence shown by the RFL, that it would happen as far back as 2005 in the last link you provided - whether it be binding or not!
Quote ="SmokeyTA" No, it isnt, it was used to find out which heartland clubs were best place. Which expansion clubs were best placed, and which expansion clubs were better placed than which heartland clubs.they didnt ignore, they used it as a part of the process, as they consistently said they would '"
So why did they get it so catastrophically wrong?
Quote ="SmokeyTA" no, they should stand on their own merits. Being slightly better than Salford are now isnt a reason in and of itself to be admitted. The club should be admitted because it can contribute. If it cant then it shouldnt.'"
So what did the Celtic Crusader contribute to Super League, in their brief and embarrassingly, disastrous period there?
Quote ="SmokeyTA" It was made clear.'"
What was made clear?
That a new expansion club might win a licence in 2009?
BBC Sport:
[i‘Potential new clubs are likely to come from London, Wales or France.’[/i
That is hardly an emphatic statement of intent to place the Celtic Crusaders in Super League. It is merely stating that [i‘potential new clubs may come from London, Wales or France’[/i. It doesn’t state that any of these clubs will have a priority position in Super League, which is what I am saying should have happened. This, unlike the 2005 RFL document about expansion, with a limited amount of heartland clubs, and subsequent assertions from Richard Lewis that it was going to happen, is clearly in the form of a stated aim. In fact, they clearly state that it will merely “be considered”.
Again, this is not the clarification I think we should have got. |
|
Quote ="SmokeyTA" and this actually showed otherwise. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 459782.stm dated 2008. It also explains that this coincided with the renegotiating of the TV contract with Sky.
Im sure you would admit it would be pretty naive for the RFL to make this kind of decision prior to them knowing the size of the TV contract.'"
It doesn’t change the fact that the RFL had already decided that they needed to expand SL to 14 clubs in 2005, and that they felt that there were only so many heartland clubs which would be able to be part of it, and then write it up in as official policy. Low and behold, we now have exactly that.
Who was doing the speculating, because it wasn’t the RFL?
They were perfectly clear about what they wanted in 2005. Perhaps it was naive, or perhaps they had already had the go ahead as far back as 2005, from Sky, to begin planning for a 14 club SL for 2009. It is not an unusual thing for businesses to have 5 and 10 year plans and have agreements in place for them. Given the timing of the setting up of two of the expansion clubs, it seems likely. Richard Lewis actually seems very confident it would happen, in that 2005 link you posted. It tends to back up exactly what I have been saying; that they’d planned it in 2005, if not even earlier, and confidently announced that it would happen in 2009 as far back as that 2005 article. It is clearly going much further than simply calling it a stated aim.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" I havent disputed it was an aim. Im disputing that A) the decision was made prior to the bids being submitted. and B) the RFL havent been open and honest about their aims.'"
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one
Quote ="SmokeyTA" no, im saying the player pool isnt only relevant for the first 10 years. It is on-going. And i dont think it is controversial to say that there is more potential for growth in the player pool in Wales than Widnes. '"
I disagree. It depends on many factors. Interest in the game, academy and quality of the coaching set up, &c. Being in a heartland area, where there are lots of players that may never be given a chance by their local SL clubs, may be given a chance by the new heartland club, and prove to be a great success. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before. I can think of several brilliant players who played for my club under such circumstances, never mind the the many other heartland clubs who missed out. The heartland club can provide a nearby option, that an expansion club cannot. Thus, many players are less likely to slip though the net and disappear forever.
Quote ="SmokeyTA"Widnes is surrounded by SL clubs. The pathways and the amateur game are fully matured, There isnt going to be a lot more amateur players, or more players being able to be taken from the player pool.'"
I take that geography wasn’t your strongest subject?
Which pro RL club is directly South of Widnes?
Which pro RL club is directly West of Widnes?
Our player pathways are being improved upon all the time, by the club and Halton Borough Council. They in the schools all over Halton, and the Valhalla Foundation is taking off, with school kids from all over the borough playing each other in a competition which culminates in a final at a Widnes game in the Stobart Stadium Halton.
Widnes’ under 16’s academy went unbeaten against all SL opposition, and our 18’s dominated the elite Super League group they were in – and that is without actually being in Super League!
The club are also targeting South Liverpool and the Wirral, and even tying up with local R.U. clubs there. We have already produced plenty of rugby talent from our lowly position – including a recent England international. That was before the extra concentration and effort, which is now being put into the clubs’ youth structure and player pathways by the new Chairman and his team.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" You are desperately ignoring the fact that 'expansion' affects every area of the bid bar the stadium, Which was already covered by the plans they had submitted in the same way as wakefield, cas, Saints, and Salford.'"
Errr…really?
How does that work then?
Why is it different for and expansion club in the criteria areas marked,
Commercial and Marketing?
Facilities?
Finance?
Governance and Business Management?
Playing Strength and Player Performance Strategy?
I take it that you mean the RFL just ignore all these, when scrutinizing expansion clubs?
To my mind, you either have these in place, and in a position of strength, or you don’t. Whether you are judging a heartland club or an expansion club, it shouldn’t make any difference. The quality of that clubs bid must depend on these vital areas.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" That they were a brand new club in all but name. '"
They’re still two very, very different clubs.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" again: the document wasnt binding. And again '"
It says there was some speculation. It didn’t say by whom, or why. Therefore, totally meaningless, when you look at the bullishness and confidence shown by the RFL, that it would happen as far back as 2005 in the last link you provided - whether it be binding or not!
Quote ="SmokeyTA" No, it isnt, it was used to find out which heartland clubs were best place. Which expansion clubs were best placed, and which expansion clubs were better placed than which heartland clubs.they didnt ignore, they used it as a part of the process, as they consistently said they would '"
So why did they get it so catastrophically wrong?
Quote ="SmokeyTA" no, they should stand on their own merits. Being slightly better than Salford are now isnt a reason in and of itself to be admitted. The club should be admitted because it can contribute. If it cant then it shouldnt.'"
So what did the Celtic Crusader contribute to Super League, in their brief and embarrassingly, disastrous period there?
Quote ="SmokeyTA" It was made clear.'"
What was made clear?
That a new expansion club might win a licence in 2009?
BBC Sport:
[i‘Potential new clubs are likely to come from London, Wales or France.’[/i
That is hardly an emphatic statement of intent to place the Celtic Crusaders in Super League. It is merely stating that [i‘potential new clubs may come from London, Wales or France’[/i. It doesn’t state that any of these clubs will have a priority position in Super League, which is what I am saying should have happened. This, unlike the 2005 RFL document about expansion, with a limited amount of heartland clubs, and subsequent assertions from Richard Lewis that it was going to happen, is clearly in the form of a stated aim. In fact, they clearly state that it will merely “be considered”.
Again, this is not the clarification I think we should have got. | |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Pepe"It doesn’t change the fact that the RFL had already decided that they needed to expand SL to 14 clubs in 2005, and that they felt that there were only so many heartland clubs which would be able to be part of it, and then write it up in as official policy. Low and behold, we now have exactly that.
Who was doing the speculating, because it wasn’t the RFL?
They were perfectly clear about what they wanted in 2005. Perhaps it was naive, or perhaps they had already had the go ahead as far back as 2005, from Sky, to begin planning for a 14 club SL for 2009. It is not an unusual thing for businesses to have 5 and 10 year plans and have agreements in place for them. Given the timing of the setting up of two of the expansion clubs, it seems likely. Richard Lewis actually seems very confident it would happen, in that 2005 link you posted. It tends to back up exactly what I have been saying; that they’d planned it in 2005, if not even earlier, and confidently announced that it would happen in 2009 as far back as that 2005 article. It is clearly going much further than simply calling it a stated aim. '" I have no doubt the aimed to have a 14 team SL with at least 2 expansion clubs in, they have pretty much said as much. I am simply explaining that they hadnt decided that they were going to do.
Quote We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one
I disagree. It depends on many factors. Interest in the game, academy and quality of the coaching set up, &c. Being in a heartland area, where there are lots of players that may never be given a chance by their local SL clubs, may be given a chance by the new heartland club, and prove to be a great success. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before. I can think of several brilliant players who played for my club under such circumstances, never mind the the many other heartland clubs who missed out. The heartland club can provide a nearby option, that an expansion club cannot. Thus, many players are less likely to slip though the net and disappear forever. '" Seriously? you think there is a vast amount of players in Widnes that arent playing RL because there isnt an SL club in Widnes? or that there are loads of youngsters ignored by Widnes, Sts, Wire, Wigan?
Quote I take that geography wasn’t your strongest subject?
Which pro RL club is directly South of Widnes?
Which pro RL club is directly West of Widnes?'" what a ridiculous argument.
Quote Our player pathways are being improved upon all the time, by the club and Halton Borough Council. They in the schools all over Halton, and the Valhalla Foundation is taking off, with school kids from all over the borough playing each other in a competition which culminates in a final at a Widnes game in the Stobart Stadium Halton.
Widnes’ under 16’s academy went unbeaten against all SL opposition, and our 18’s dominated the elite Super League group they were in – and that is without actually being in Super League! '" and there will be more with Widnes in SL because.........
Quote The club are also targeting South Liverpool and the Wirral, and even tying up with local R.U. clubs there. We have already produced plenty of rugby talent from our lowly position – including a recent England international. That was before the extra concentration and effort, which is now being put into the clubs’ youth structure and player pathways by the new Chairman and his team. '" Compare this to the explosion in the welsh amateur game.
Quote Errr…really?
How does that work then?
Why is it different for and expansion club in the criteria areas marked, '" you are again confusing the tick box criteria, and the subjective analysis done later.
Commercial and Marketing?
Facilities?
Finance?
Governance and Business Management?
Quote Playing Strength and Player Performance Strategy?'" Yes, an expansion club will be different in all these areas than a heartland club.
Quote I take it that you mean the RFL just ignore all these, when scrutinizing expansion clubs?'" they dont need to they werent part of the subjective analysis, stop making the same rookie mistake of confusing the subjective criteria used to choose which clubs went in to SL from the C group and the tick box criteria used to group clubs
Quote To my mind, you either have these in place, and in a position of strength, or you don’t. Whether you are judging a heartland club or an expansion club, it shouldn’t make any difference. The quality of that clubs bid must depend on these vital areas. '" then we would never, ever expand, It should be taken as a given that a heartland club should be in a stronger position in all those areas than an expansion club. they have had nigh on a hundred years to get there. If we dont push the expansion clubs to accelerate their growth then we will be in the same position 100 years from now.
Quote They’re still two very, very different clubs.'" yes they are, i didnt say they were the same club, simply in a similar position.
Quote It says there was some speculation. It didn’t say by whom, or why. Therefore, totally meaningless, when you look at the bullishness and confidence shown by the RFL, that it would happen as far back as 2005 in the last link you provided - whether it be binding or not! '" So the RFL made aims, openly and honestly, they followed through on those aims. Yet here you are arguing they werent transparent?
So why did they get it so catastrophically wrong?
Quote So what did the Celtic Crusader contribute to Super League, in their brief and embarrassingly, disastrous period there?'" A welsh aspect, a growing club, a pathway for welsh players.
What did Leigh contribute to SL in their brief and embarrassingly disastrous period there?
Quote What was made clear?
That a new expansion club might win a licence in 2009?
BBC Sport:
[i‘Potential new clubs are likely to come from London, Wales or France.’[/i
That is hardly an emphatic statement of intent to place the Celtic Crusaders in Super League. It is merely stating that [i‘potential new clubs may come from London, Wales or France’[/i. It doesn’t state that any of these clubs will have a priority position in Super League, which is what I am saying should have happened. This, unlike the 2005 RFL document about expansion, with a limited amount of heartland clubs, and subsequent assertions from Richard Lewis that it was going to happen, is clearly in the form of a stated aim. In fact, they clearly state that it will merely “be considered”. '" because you have put here, you have made up. Celtic werent given priority. They were considered. The RFL/SL document didnt say they would limit the heartland clubs, simply that the RFL and SL didnt feel the heartland player pool couldnt support 14 teams.
Quote Again, this is not the clarification I think we should have got.'" What else, which you have any evidence whatsoever of actually happening, did you want them to clarify for you?
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 2912 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Apr 2024 | Jan 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"But you arent asking for Huddersfields balance sheet from 2 years ago, you are asking for the RFL to make public their opinion on the Huddersfield balance sheet. If you cant work out how that may be something the clubs, for very obvious reasons, may not want releasing then there is no helping you.'"
I thought the RFL weren't scrutinising the accounts, they got a third party in to do that. And don't auditors pass comment on the balance sheet and the rest of the books of every limited company/Plc in the published accounts anyway? | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5870 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2016 | Aug 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA" I have no doubt the aimed to have a 14 team SL with at least 2 expansion clubs in, they have pretty much said as much. I am simply explaining that they hadnt decided that they were going to do. '"
You cannot know that for sure, any more than I do.
Both of us can only speculate. I believe the whole process was a goer from the moment they released their 2005 document.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" Seriously? you think there is a vast amount of players in Widnes that arent playing RL because there isnt an SL club in Widnes? or that there are loads of youngsters ignored by Widnes, Sts, Wire, Wigan?'"
Of course.
There’s only so many places that a club has available for youth development and, I’m sure, that many are overlooked.
The bigger presence a club has in it’s town, via being in the top flight, the more people will be interested in the sport, thus the more youngsters want to play the game. Is it not the primary reason for placing expansion clubs in Super League?
Quote ="SmokeyTA" what a ridiculous argument.'"
You said that Widnes was ‘surrounded by SL clubs’.
It is not. Answer the questions, instead of avoiding them.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" and there will be more with Widnes in SL because.........'"
Because the clubs’ new ethos and raison d'être is based on the production of youngsters to the first team in a way that several other clubs in SL, are not. The club has shown it can produce quality players anyway, but they are now expanding the search right across the borough and beyond and crating new pathways for youngsters in areas that they didn’t exist before. We now have the kind money and the infrastructure to do this. Some clubs in SL don’t and won't do this to the same degree, imo.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" Compare this to the explosion in the welsh amateur game.'"
Which is great, and a very good reason for putting them in Super League, but nowhere near enough, on it’s own to justify them being put into SL via the bid process.
Let me know when it produces players that will be ever-present members of the Crusaders and a player capable of getting in the England squad. Yes, I know they’d be heading for the Welsh squad, but you get Championship players in there too. So I mean comparable with a player who could be regarded as England standard.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" you are again confusing the tick box criteria, and the subjective analysis done later.
Commercial and Marketing?
Facilities?
Finance?
Governance and Business Management?
'"
I’m not confusing anything. These are areas all clubs need to be rigorously scrutinized on, regardless of where it is situated, as it actually shows whether, or not, it is capable of staying in business for the period of it’s licence.
You can’t just say it’s all about bringing Welsh players through. If the club cannot stay solvent, it cannot give them a proper pathway to the sport.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" Yes, an expansion club will be different in all these areas than a heartland club.'"
Which is why there’s little point in trying to judge them on exactly the same criteria.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" they dont need to they werent part of the subjective analysis, stop making the same rookie mistake of confusing the subjective criteria used to choose which clubs went in to SL from the C group and the tick box criteria used to group clubs'"
So, you’re saying that, once they got past the grading, they looked at who was in the C Grade group and said, we’ll have them, them and them and leave the rest where they are, regardless of whether or not they were actually suitable and capable of staying solvent in Super League?
Quote ="SmokeyTA" then we would never, ever expand, It should be taken as a given that a heartland club should be in a stronger position in all those areas than an expansion club. they have had nigh on a hundred years to get there. If we dont push the expansion clubs to accelerate their growth then we will be in the same position 100 years from now.'"
Yes we can expand. I’ve already told you how I think it should be done. I agree that times have changed and it is important to create a ‘national footprint’.
Simply saying those clubs who have been around for 100 years and are in the Championship, means they can never be a force again, is just wrong. Success is often cyclical in sport. They can be up one decade and down the next. It all depends on many factors. My club has been very successful over the last 100 years, thank you very much!
One thing is for sure, the way the RFL has managed expansion, most of these precious new clubs, they will be lucky to see out the next 10 years, never mind 100.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" So the RFL made aims, openly and honestly, they followed through on those aims. Yet here you are arguing they werent transparent? '"
Because they tried to pretend that they were running a stringent and fair bidding process in order to bring this about.
IMO, they didn’t.
What this shows is they knew what they wanted to do, and which clubs would be in SL, as far back as 2005. The licence bid process was nothing more than a sham, in order to hoodwink those clubs in the Championship into backing a licence system. If they had simply said that an extra expansion club would be included, in the form of the Celtic Crusaders, and made a strong case for them, it may have been accepted anyway. At least the Championship clubs would have known where they stand.
Quote ="pepe" So why did they get it so catastrophically wrong?'"
Still waiting for an answer on this?
Quote ="pepe"So what did the Celtic Crusader contribute to Super League, in their brief and embarrassingly, disastrous period there? '"
Quote ="SmokeyTA" A welsh aspect, '"
Great, but not enough without being able to stay solvent in Super League. At the time we were sold a South Wales aspect. Now we have a different club 150 miles to the North. This is not what was offered. This was lost because the RFL didn’t ensure they were capable of surviving,
Quote ="SmokeyTA" a growing club, '"
They’re dead. They don’t exist in the form they presented themselves at the bid process, anymore.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" a pathway for welsh players'"
Not anymore, but the new club might.
I seriously hope they do. But the jury is still out.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" because you have put here, you have made up. Celtic werent given priority. They were considered. The RFL/SL document didnt say they would limit the heartland clubs, simply that the RFL and SL didnt feel the heartland player pool couldnt support 14 teams. '"
Which, anyway you care to look at it, pre-judges the bid process.
Quote ="SmokeyTA" What else, which you have any evidence whatsoever of actually happening, did you want them to clarify for you? '"
I wouldn’t mind knowing how the RFL, regarded the Celtic Crusaders as financially viable. What we know now shows a complete lack of due diligence on their behalf, which leads me to believe that they couldn’t give a for the criteria. They wanted them in, regardless.
That’s not how they tried to purvey the situation to the RL world, imo. | | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
'"
